thomaswoodfandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Thomas Wood Wiki Guidelines
This page is meant for all users. Users can propose new guidelines for both users and administrators alike. Voting will then be undertaken. If one administrator opposes the proposal, the two-thirds majority of the other two voting administrators may pass the proposal. Amendments can be proposed by users and administrators, but only the latter may vote on their adoption and the passage of the rule proposal they pertain to. It is a duty of TWR Wiki Administrators to watch this page and weigh in and vote on all proposals. Guideline Proposals 'User page protection' Only edit your user page.Ivan Kakooza 20:01, October 23, 2011 (UTC) :Oppose: Protecting userpages would not be able to allow users to edit their own pages whilst stopping others from doing the same. Administrators would be the only one able to edit regardless. They'd have to constantly change protection levels and the coordination for that would be ridiculous. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:13, December 4, 2011 (UTC) :Oppose: Same reason stated above :P Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:19, December 4, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 ::Result: '''The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified. '''Category Proposal I, with encouragement from OrigamiAirEnforcer, am now proposing a new guideline for adding new categories to pages. My proposal is that new categories should only be created if it actually is needed. Categories like wheel configuration and engines' basis should not be allowed, it would only cause trouble. Categories that should be allowed are, for example, things like "Engines that have been Re-Issued" or "Troublesome Engines." The first one would be for engines that have had re-issue models of them, the second one is for engines that frequently cause trouble i.e. Diesel, Diesel 10, Troublesome Trucks. Mr.Conductor 04:10, December 10, 2011 (UTC) Support, with amendments: I agree that wheel configuration and engine basis are unnecessary categories, but I also believe 'Troublemakers" and "Reissued" categories are not terribly fitting either. For other administrators note: there is no conflict of interest, my encouragement was solely that Mr. Conductor exercise his right to propose new guidelines. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:42, December 10, 2011 (UTC) Oppose: With the vote hung and no amendments to speak of proposed, I must oppose the proposal as it is written. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:13, December 12, 2011 (UTC) Support:' '''However, I do not feel "Troublesome Engines" is necessary. I do, however, feel "Reissued" and "Discontinued" may be appropriate. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 15:33, December 10, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 '''Oppose', I think "Engines that have been Re-issued" and "Troublesome Engines", aren't quite necessary categories, for reasons mentioned above. FDMG, 8:48 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 01:48, December 12, 2011 (UTC) Result: '''The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified. '''Talk Page Retention/Archives I propose that it become a guideline that all conversations on talk pages remain and not be expunged from the page, but at most strikenthrough unless these exchanges are in violation of other guidelines. I also propose that after every 15 messages (that is, subject sections) talk pages be archived. I will recuse myself from voting on this having been the one to propose it. The other administrators should vote on this soon. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:24, December 12, 2011 (UTC) Support. I don't have too much to say, so let's just say I agree with the above. FDMG, 8:29 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 01:29, December 12, 2011 (UTC) Support: '''Sounds good to me! Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:02, December 12, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 '''Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified. Strike Proposal I have obtained a marvellous idea from the Thomas and Friends wiki. I propose that we employ a strike system to stop vandalism. Instead of just blocking someone, give that person a "strike." Three strikes will be given to that person, and after that - a block if that person continues to vandalize or spam. Mr.Conductor 00:16, December 13, 2011 (UTC) Support, with amendments: I believe this is a good idea, but right now my vote is hung on the provisions of this proposal. These strikes should be based on severity of the infraction. If we do adopt this with such a severity basis amendment, I would also wish for this to be made very clear and not vague or open to interpretation. If such amendments are not included and passed, I will have to change my vote to "Opposed". OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:58, December 13, 2011 (UTC) Oppose: '''Rethinking the proposal, not only do I think the current, one strike system is better because of its simplicity compared to this proposed idea. Additionally, the amendments I wished to be attached to this have not been really considered either. With the vote hung and one of the other voters also looking for amendments and not being answered, I feel I must move to the "Opposed" vote. OrigamiAirEnforcer 22:28, December 17, 2011 (UTC) '''Oppose: I believe one warning is sufficent. However, if it is a server violation (i.e. uploading pornographic or violent images, racial slurrs, etc.) I believe a block is needed, however, the user in question may still edit his talk page so he could discuss the violation with the mods. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:44, December 14, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Support, with amendments, I think strikes are necessary, but only against spammers that upload pornographic or violent images and/or racial slurs. If it's something minor, like inaccurate information on a certain engine, I think just a warning will do. FDMG, 8:58 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 01:58, December 16, 2011 (UTC) Result: '''The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified. '''Blocked User Appeal Amendment Proposal As it is currently, there is only a de facto rule among administrators around the wiki maintaining that blocked users be allowed to use their talk pages for appeals while blocked. I believe it ought to be a point incorporated into the wiki guidelines that, "so long as there are no further infractions while blocked by a blocked user, they may have access to their talk pages." As before, I will recuse myself from voting on this having been the one to propose it. The other administrators should vote on this soon. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:44, December 15, 2011 (UTC) Support: I agree with this proposal. If a user begins to "curse up a storm" on their talk page after they have been blocked, I believe they should lose access to their talk page as well. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 21:02, December 16, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Support:I agree with this proposal, as well as Jamesis5. If anything should not be allowed on the TWR wiki, it's profanity. FDMG, 4:55 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 21:55, December 17, 2011 (UTC) Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified. Clarification of the TWR Wiki Allowance of Characters' Back Stories In recent edits, users have added more than just information onto characters' pages, much of it being expansions on their back stories. I feel this is need of interpretation of all of the wiki administrators, whom I feel need to come to a consensus, as this is significant. Personally I see a long back story as unneccessary for a wiki that is (to my knowledge) focused on the models of the character and not the character itself. Thoughts? OrigamiAirEnforcer 18:26, December 27, 2011 (UTC) I think that as much as the focus on the actual models on the TWR wiki is necessary, I also think it's a good idea to have a reasonable backstory, so that people on the TWR wiki, particularly the newcomers, will know who the engines are and/or what episode(s) they appear in. So in other words, I have mixed feelings for this rule. FDMG, 1:40 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 18:40, December 27, 2011 (UTC) I meant it less as a rule, but more as just a question of where everyone is at interpreting the de facto rule of back stories. OrigamiAirEnforcer 18:47, December 27, 2011 (UTC) A breif backstory is needed. 2-3 sentences is sufficent. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 20:27, December 27, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 'Administrator Recusal Amendment' I believe it needs to be made official that administrators proposing the enactment or repeal of wiki guidelines recuse themselves from voting on their own proposals, primarily to avoid the obvious conflicts on interest. I myself have done so twice to uphold the de facto rule, and now I believe this de facto rule needs to be established. For obvious reasons, I will recuse myself on voting for this too. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:26, December 29, 2011 (UTC) Support: Fine with me, I did it out of common sense before :P Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:11, December 29, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Support: I've read over this topic several times, but it's a bit hard for even me to understand, so I might as well get this out of the way by agreeing. FDMG, 1:24 P.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 18:24, December 29, 2011 (UTC) Result: The proposal passed in voting and has been ratified. 'Expanded User Privilege Proposal' My proposal is, that users should be allowed certain admimistrator privilgeges such as: voting on proposals, customizing badges, and deleting pages. HOWEVER, these powers should only be used with administrator approval, and the users should be punished severly for abusing the powers. I understand the concerns that you may have, but everything might work out, if the right decisions are made. Mr.Conductor 03:16, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Oppose: This would require nothing short of granting users adminships, and is ridiculous in the face of tools such as badges and processes such as deletions. Customizing badges isn't as personal as it may imply. It affects all who earn that badge. The deletion template exists as a signal for users to use to administrators to consider (and possibly make) deletions. I strongly oppose this proposal and I doubt any amendments will be able to sway me. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:29, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Oppose: '''The reasons stated are pointless. To do this, we would have to make every user on the Wiki an admin, which would take all of the "power" away from the actual admins. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:49, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 '''Result: '''The proposal failed in voting and was not ratified. '''Proposal Deletion Rule I would like to propose a rule preventing the deletion of any and all rule proposals. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:06, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Support, with amendments: I support this, but I would like it amended that failed proposals (though no their titles or votes), be strikenthrough with the strikethrough tool after failing in voting. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:11, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Is this strikethrough?Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:38, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Affirmative. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:40, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Fine with me. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 04:52, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Recusal, recusal. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:56, December 30, 2011 (UTC) 'Hung Vote Avoidance Amendment' I propose that to avoid the possible problems of hung amendment proposals, that any proposal in which the vote is hung and cannot be reconciled within a week of the original proposal, the proposal be declared a failure and not ratified. I will recuse per my own will and by the wiki guidelines. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:15, December 31, 2011 (UTC) Repeal Proposals 'Talk Page Archival Mandate Repeal' I propse the following rule "After every 15 messages (subjects, not entries), talk pages must be archived " is removed from the guidelines. I am not a fan of archived pages and I do not feel users should have archived pages forced upon them. There is no need to do it. I'd say maybe after every 100 messages talk pages CAN be archived, per the users request. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:10, December 28, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Oppose: Talk pages are not meant to be epics. Talk pages are meant to be easy places where users can communicate with one another. The aim of the talk pages is not to be lengthy, but effective. To my knowledge, it is the standard of the Thomas Wikia and Wikipedia to archived talk pages after 10-15 messages are posted. I believe we ought to follow their model and proceed with the rule as it stands. Your talk page James, if included on the wiki's list of long pages, would rank in at number 2, surpassing every wiki content page except for the image-laden Box page. There is absolutely no need for such a long talk page. The extreme length obstructs the duty and function the page should be serving. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:37, December 28, 2011 (UTC) The TTTE Wiki only archives when a user feels like it. The admins do not force it upon the users. The rule is pointless and quite frankly, unfair. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 23:23, December 28, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 You voted on this rule December 12, 2011. You seemed pretty enthusiastic with the proposal then, and did not so much as ask for amendments. The rule is not unfair, quite the opposite. It makes communication easier, and reduces the elitism of administrators' talk page lengths. Of note is that this rule has yet to affect anyone but myself. I really don't understand your sudden reversal when this rule was acclaimed by you in voting and hasn't affected anyone but me. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:15, December 29, 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to take all of that out after I saw the vote myself earlier. I simply forgot it ever happened :P Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 05:45, December 29, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Support I agree, I don't think archiving a user's talk page is necessary. FDMG, 7:34 A.M. Approx. FlyingDuckManGenesis 12:34, December 29, 2011 (UTC) So, the vote is hung, 1 vote for, 1 against. I believe that means the repeal proposal has failed in voting and so the repeal cannot go ahead. As far as this entire repeal goes, I really don't understand your sudden reversals. Did you guys read the proposal before voting in favor of it? OrigamiAirEnforcer 17:38, December 29, 2011 (UTC) I misread it. I thought it was for the article talk pages rather than the user talk pages. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 00:09, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 So this repeal proposal is withdrawn in any case? OrigamiAirEnforcer 00:36, December 30, 2011 (UTC) No, I still want the rule repealed or changed to article talk pages, not user talk pages. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 00:49, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Well, with the vote hung, I don't see how that's possible. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:37, December 30, 2011 (UTC) We have to resolve this somehow, we cannot simple ignore it. If two of the three admins feel it should be removed it should be. My vote is no, now I know my vote may not count, but, it still counts somewhat. Simple imput from our users would be helpful. If they don't like the rule, it shall be repealed. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:28, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 This is a ridiculous issue. I see this attempt at repeal as just your way of maintaining the longest talk page for an unknown reason. Your vote does not count towards this, you proposed the repeal and you have recused. Recusal is absolute. Users have never been asked before to vote on the proposed guidelines/repeals, and I feel that trying to begin that now--especially after the votes have been cast, is just a way to try to circumvent the inevitable failure of the proposal in voting. I will continue to Oppose this repeal unless I feel that it is in the wiki's best interests to let it pass. The vote is hung, and I'm afraid unless FDMG changes his vote and opposes the repeal, it'll remain hung. OrigamiAirEnforcer 02:40, December 30, 2011 (UTC) Why would I want the longest talk page? There is no gain from it. I see that as a petty response to an actual issue. It makes you seem like you are almost jealous that I have more posts on my talk page than you do. I originally read the rule propsal incorrectly. I was reading it in the car, on my iPad and misunderstood it, it happens. Like I previously said, my vote does not count. I do think they members of this Wiki should have some imput though. It does affect them more than it affects any of us. Asking for their opinion is not a horrible thing. Unlike real governments, we cannot be voted out of office. So, we have to decide what is best for our members and there is little they can do about it. In return, we should at least ask them what they think about Wiki legislation every once in a while. This entire issue will disapear after Wikia introduces the new message wall system to all Wikis. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:53, December 30, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 As I said, an unknown reason. I do not know why you would want the longest talk page, I understand that we each mutally see no point in it. However, it is the only aspect I see as unique enough to motivate you to reverse your decision--(this is strictly a function of my beliefs and assessments and is, admittedly, just my own interpretation). As for the proposal, I understand your error, but it is not what I find wrong with this at all. Jealousy would have nothing to do with it, and the fact is I am not--(quite the contrary in fact, I enjoy fewer Wiki "new message" notifications). As for user's opinions, I do not disapprove of their voices, I disapprove of them voting in an issue not previously announced prior to OUR voting. Had you proposed their ability to voice prior to our voting, I would likely be less hesitant to entertain the idea. I will offer the concession that article pages be excluded from the requirement, but nothing further at the moment. OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:06, December 30, 2011 (UTC) I'd say at this point the proposal has failed. OrigamiAirEnforcer 01:42, December 31, 2011 (UTC) No, not really. It is hung, and shall remain hung. Hung does not mean failed. It will most likely remain hung until we gain another admin. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 02:45, December 31, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 I do not think we need another administrator, nor do I think it fair to ask for another voter after we have already voted. I really don't understand why you want to repeal something so pro-user. OrigamiAirEnforcer 03:56, December 31, 2011 (UTC) It is not pro-user. They are being forced to archive their talk pages, it is not benifical to be forced to do anything so pointless. Jamesis5 Toot! Toot! 03:58, December 31, 2011 (UTC)Jamesis5 Although I still affirm it is pro-user, I'd like to ask you, why did you vote for it in the first place if you don't like it? OrigamiAirEnforcer 04:04, December 31, 2011 (UTC)